flyfisher Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1389344923' post='2332997'] Are you for real? A salesman doesn't get an hourly rate, Bankers bonuses are not based on hours worked. Authors and musicians are paid for the volume of sales and the amount of use of their property. That is right and proper. [/quote] I'm not convinced about 'right and proper' but it is consistent, which is why I find it curious that we're generally happy to slag off bankers' bonuses while admiring Noddy Holder for making half a million, or whatever, every Christmas on the back of something he did 30 odd years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliasMooseblaster Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389356354' post='2333184'] I'm not convinced about 'right and proper' but it is consistent, which is why I find it curious that we're generally happy to slag off bankers' bonuses while admiring Noddy Holder for making half a million, or whatever, every Christmas on the back of something he did 30 odd years ago. [/quote] Aren't their motives a bit different, though? The general assumption - correct or not - seems to be that the bankers who receive these huge bonuses are simply making money-for-the-sake-of-money, and that they are driven by greed, and the knowledge that if they make the bank richer, the bank will make them richer. Much as I can't stand Slade, most people might assume that Noddy, on the other hand, wrote that song more for the love of the music he was making, and probably didn't envision that people would still be singing along to it at the office christmas party 30 or 40 years later. I'm sure that both assumptions are gross oversimplifications, but it might explain that particular quirk of popular opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 This thread is another worrying indication that music isn't worth anything anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='urb' timestamp='1389346240' post='2333015'] So in an age when actually selling a physical product - i.e. CD or even a download (which isn't physical) - and there are increasingly fewer gigs for an ever expanding number of musicians - how exactly do you propose people make a living from producing and playing music? [/quote] Well, firstly, I'd suggest that there is no natural 'right' for people to make a living from music. If there really is an 'ever expanding number of musicians' then that alone will make things tough. Secondly, I suspect most people like to see people doing some actual work for the money they receive. So, gigging and touring is one way to make money and I suspect that most people would think the money made was well earned. At least they could see that some work was being done. Conversely, simply having loads of dosh rolling in from a 10, 20, 30 year old song probably seems a bit of a piss-take to the vast majority of people who have to work from 9 to 5 to scrape a living. And I know it was controversial the last time I suggested it, but I reckon this is a large factor in why a lot of people don't think twice before downloading music for free instead of paying a few pounds yet will happily fork out hundreds for a live gig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1389357071' post='2333202'] ....This thread is another worrying indication that music isn't worth anything anymore.... [/quote] +1 And even more worrying, some of those are musicians!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urb Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389357116' post='2333204'] Well, firstly, I'd suggest that there is no natural 'right' for people to make a living from music. If there really is an 'ever expanding number of musicians' then that alone will make things tough. Secondly, I suspect most people like to see people doing some actual work for the money they receive. So, gigging and touring is one way to make money and I suspect that most people would think the money made was well earned. At least they could see that some work was being done. Conversely, simply having loads of dosh rolling in from a 10, 20, 30 year old song probably seems a bit of a piss-take to the vast majority of people who have to work from 9 to 5 to scrape a living. And I know it was controversial the last time I suggested it, but I reckon this is a large factor in why a lot of people don't think twice before downloading music for free instead of paying a few pounds yet will happily fork out hundreds for a live gig. [/quote] I agree with your comment that musicians don't have an automatic 'right' to be rich or make lots of money but the sad truth is most don't - so having [i]something [/i]in place that protects the rights of song writers is important but as BigRed X says most song writers struggle. I believe there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that those who download a lot of music actually end up spending more on music - so people have different reasons of downloading stuff for free - but I still don't think that changes the argument that if you have created a piece of 'work' that is exploited by 'content providers' (I hate the term) for their benefit then I'm sorry but I'd want to get paid for that. It's crap I agree that a lucky few benefit hugely from this legal set up but these laws also benefit the composer's families after they've died etc and sadly people getting rich off their good luck to do the right thing at the right time is the way of the world - I don't like it when the artist is some utter sh*te but hey what we can we do about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389356354' post='2333184'] I'm not convinced about 'right and proper' but it is consistent, which is why I find it curious that we're generally happy to slag off bankers' bonuses while admiring Noddy Holder for making half a million, or whatever, every Christmas on the back of something he did 30 odd years ago. [/quote] Well, you see that Noddy Holder created a very good song that caught the imagination of the public and was generally beneficial in a modest way to society. Whereas, certain elements of the banking profession pursued a high risk, short-term strategy to maximise their bonuses that created a mound of toxic debt. This plunged the country into a dreadful recession, causing many other people who never ever benefitted from their rather shady endeavours to lose their livelihoods. Also, as far as I am aware Mr Holder has never been declared bankrupt then demanded that the taxpayer pay off his debts whilst allowing him to continue to receive his huge royalties… Edited January 10, 2014 by peteb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urb Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389358306' post='2333234'] Well, you see that Noddy Holder created a very good song that caught the imagination of the public and was generally beneficial in a modest way to society. Whereas, certain elements of the banking profession pursued a high risk, short-term strategy to maximise their bonuses that created a mound of toxic debt. This plunged the country into a dreadful recession, causing many other people who never ever benefitted from their rather shady endeavours to lose their livelihoods. Also, as far as I am aware Mr Holder has never been declared bankrupt then demanded that the taxpayer pay off his debts whilst allowing him to continue to receive his huge royalties… [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteb Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Some people seem to be very much undervaluing signwriting here, because somehow they van not equate it with a 9 to 5 job. I struggle to understand this – surely if you create something of value then you should continue to benefit from it for as long as it is of value! It is irrelevant if it took you 30 minutes or three months to write that song, the only thing that matters is how good that song is ! I thought that the point of the OP was about Sting / Andy Summers and how different parts of the process are rewarded? Why does the guy who writes down the lyrics and melody get 100% of the spoils and the guy who came up with the guitar hook that turned it from just another pop song into a massive hit get nothing?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevB Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 So should an artist get a cut of the entrance money from everyone who comes to see an exhibition of their work at a gallery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='KevB' timestamp='1389360161' post='2333272'] So should an artist get a cut of the entrance money from everyone who comes to see an exhibition of their work at a gallery? [/quote] I dunno how it works - does an artist not get paid when their work is displayed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 ... or a designer a cut, every time someone sits on a chair he/she designed..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389360380' post='2333280'] ... or a designer a cut, every time someone sits on a chair he/she designed..? [/quote] If the design of the chair is unique, and has feature that no other chair can offer, then I imagine they could keep it to themselves and charge what they like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389358306' post='2333234'] Well, you see that Noddy Holder created a very good song that caught the imagination of the public and was generally beneficial in a modest way to society. Whereas, certain elements of the banking profession pursued a high risk, short-term strategy to maximise their bonuses that created a mound of toxic debt. This plunged the country into a dreadful recession, causing many other people who never ever benefitted from their rather shady endeavours to lose their livelihoods. Also, as far as I am aware Mr Holder has never been declared bankrupt then demanded that the taxpayer pay off his debts whilst allowing him to continue to receive his huge royalties… [/quote] Yes! And Noddy and Co. were at least creative, where the only thing 'creative' about banking is 'accountancy'. Banking [i]per se[/i] offers no benefit to society whatsoever, whereas music is good for the soul. In my opinion. Edited January 10, 2014 by discreet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 He probably would have if we used his CDs to buy our food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 That's the thing, you see. There are MILLIONS of songs out there, a huge chunk of which you can listen to for free. And a huge chunk of those are probably not very good. If you want Every Breath You Take, it's going to cost you. Why? Because people rate it so highly they're willing to pay for it. A mechanic fixes a car, and gets his hourly rate. He [i]could[/i] charge a fee every time the car is driven subsequently, but his customers would go to somewhere else and he'd go out of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389359718' post='2333255'] Some people seem to be very much undervaluing signwriting here, because somehow they van not equate it with a 9 to 5 job. I struggle to understand this – surely if you create something of value then you should continue to benefit from it for as long as it is of value! It is irrelevant if it took you 30 minutes or three months to write that song, the only thing that matters is how good that song is ! I thought that the point of the OP was about Sting / Andy Summers and how different parts of the process are rewarded? Why does the guy who writes down the lyrics and melody get 100% of the spoils and the guy who came up with the guitar hook that turned it from just another pop song into a massive hit get nothing?? [/quote] Because he failed to convince the band that the hook was part of the melody. All these comparisons never work. People should be rewarded if they provide something of value. If they are rewarded everytime something is used that's ok. If you want to listen to music then you should pay for it. The only difference is in recent history instead of paying a musician to play it, you can get a recording of it being played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveK Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Regarding the chairs comparison: If the design of the chair was unique, then it is right that the designer receives payment for every unit sold. Didn't the inventor of the workmate do rather well? The comparison with car mechanics doesn't work either - Simply, because his work can't be replicated. Coming back to Andy Summers - it is a little surprising, if he feels so aggrieved, that it hasn't gone to court. My guess is that he doesn't feel that he has a strong enough case. Or, if he did take it to court it would put the kibosh on any future Police reunion. There are many cases where a contribution to a track by a non-writer has resulted in the non-writer becoming a co-writer. These cases seem to be judged on case by case basis, and It can be a very risky and very costly business. Even if you win, you can find yourself out of pocket! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 As is usual with 'creative types' http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar04/articles/classictracks.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Apple Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 It was Stings' Dad who was the milkman. Mr Sting was a teacher (geography I think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueslemac Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I've just read Wilko Johnson's autobiography. As he wrote all Dr Feelgood's songs, he made far more money than the rest of the band. His lawyer was actually in the process of drawing up a fresh agreement so the other members of the band could share the profits (he felt they'd added bits and pieces here and there and it was only right that they should get some benefit) when they sacked him. He instructed his lawyer to leave things as they were, and I can't say I blame him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjones Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I was reading his autobiography, the other day, and he mentions something about how they figured out a system of sharing royalties, even though the vast majority of songs were written by him (have you heard the Andy Summers and Stewart Copelands songs on Police albums? They're pretty awful). The Police were 100% Gordon Sumner, and the other two might as well be just hired hands. Anyway they just got paid a shitload of cash for their recent tour (net revenue $340 million), so hopefully they'll be able to afford their own Italian castles now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='gjones' timestamp='1389368211' post='2333466'] The Police were 100% Gordon Sumner, and the other two might as well be just hired hands. Anyway they just got paid a shitload of cash for their recent tour (net revenue $340 million), so hopefully they'll be able to afford their own Italian castles now. [/quote] I disagree. Copeland and Summers' styles are too distinctive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjones Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 [quote name='KevB' timestamp='1389360161' post='2333272'] So should an artist get a cut of the entrance money from everyone who comes to see an exhibition of their work at a gallery? [/quote] Recently a system was implemented, whereby an artist gets a cut of the profits made every time a painting, of theirs, is sold for a profit. Seems fair if musicians, writers, film makers and actors get royalties. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/07/arts.artsnews1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.